I did answer, you just did not get it.
It depends on your defintion of free. Here, free money refers to the RTM (Théorie Relative de la Monnaie).
OK parlons en français si ça peut aider.
Because :
Any one can creates a new currency with ucoin, so anyone can set the parameters he wants for his currency.The software is under GPLv3 so anyone can fork it and implement different WoT rules he thinks would be better.
This is not the definition of freedom.
Freedom always requires some glue to exist.
You cannot be defined free outside a community.
Quelle est LA définition de liberté ?
Vous pouvez parlez francais, mais je prefere repondre en anglais parce que je ne sais pas parlez francais tres bien.
Oh, really? Prove it.
Just an counter-example: I am alone in a locked-room. I am not free, and this do not involve any community at all.
Your definition of freedom is wrong because you cannot define freedom outside the context of a community.
If you have no community at all, then you are not free, you are alone. If you are locked into a room, someone locked you, so you belong to a community of prisoners and guards.
So as long as community ALWAYS exist (unless you are alone), freedom is the power to decide for the issues of your community.
This is how freedom is defined, and it is not me to say that, this is also how Ancient Athenians philosophers defined freedom. They said that you can be either free (means you can decide about the issues of your community) or slave (means you cannot decide).
So a free money is not real free, as long as there is someone who decides about its parameters (including the WoT parameters) and the others who participate in the same community cannot.
You may say, you are free to fork and create a new community with new parameters. But still, in this forked community (and as long as the software remains similar) there is always someone who decides the initial parameters, and the others cannot. So you are forking again a non free community, and as a consequence your money is not a real free money again. So the problem resides in the written software itself, which puts initials parameters above the will of the community.
Thats why I am proposing the software to be written in such a way that (if possible) all of its parameters to be controlled by a community and can be changed in the runtime (something similar to reflective programming, computers are inherently reflective but because many popular high level languages are not designed as reflectives, programmers forgot how to write in a reflective way). And as a trusted community that can control all software parameters, I propose the cryptoparty assembly.
1 Like
Changing the parameters during the currency lifetime is not impossible actually.
If you fork the software / evolve its code, you can develop a node software which would accept the evolution of the WoT parameters. With the blockchain consensus, and the fact that every members has only one vote in the blockchain computing, we can democratically change the money parameters while its running.
The software cannot do that in it’s current version, and we wont do that because it’s too early and useless at the moment (we don’t even have a real free currency in usage right now), but this is totally faisible.
So, there is no problem at all, every one is totally free to :
- Fork the software
- Suggest the community to evolve the currency parameters
- Leave a community
- Create and suggest his own currency
- And many more things, because users are free and we can’t imagine the infinity of the possibilities here
2 Likes
No this is absolutely wrong.
Humanity is dead, I am alone on a spaceship and I locked myself in the room by mistake.
So all the rest of your post is wrong also.
There has been a debate about freedom from more than 2000 years, so I don’t think that we will solve it today. My opinion is that if you want to understand what is freedom, you have to understand what is consciousness. I know that we are a little bit far from the initial subject, but I just watch the best presentation on this topic I ever seen and I would like to share it with you.
Have a nice and free day.
1 Like
This statement is completely inconsistent with Relative Theory of Money you should study first before discussing here about what is a free money and what is not.
You can start first with the comments about the 4 economical freedoms followed by mathematical developments if you are ok with maths. But in any case reading RTM developments is needed before discussing this.
My friend, because you have named your money “free” in yout Relative Theory of Money , this does not mean also it is a real free money.
It is a common tactic to steal names, in order to appear more catchy. For example Parliamentarism names himself a Democracy, but it is not.
You change the meaning of the word “free”, that is happening with you. And it is happening as long as you insist of deciding how to initialize your money, and at the same time you ignore the point of view of the people of your community regarding those initial values.
People in order to be able to communicate, they have to give meaning to the sounds they spell.
If you insist of giving a different meaning in the sound of the word “free” , if you want to give your own meaning and definition, this simply means that you just dont want to communicate with the others.
Not at all. For instance “free” in english is not the same like “libre en français”. But when you discuss with people in France, anybody has its own definition of what “libre” means, as well as “free software by the GNU fondation” is not at all “free software for Microsoft Company”.
So what is good communication, is not to suppose there is an absolute definition people would agree to refer. This is absolutely incorrect understanding of what is concept and what is not.
What is good communication is to give enough definition of your own understanding of some concepts, and defining them relatively to one or another domain of application.
So here, “free money” or “monnaie libre” or “libre money”, is referring to RTM definition of the 4 economical freedom and demonstration of what would be a “monnaie libre”. So it is absolutely clear.
What is not clear is what is your own idea of “free money”. Without any doubt it seems very different as well as a “MIT licence free software” is very different of a “GPL licence free software”. So the “RTM free money” will probably not be your own “demo free money” you will need to define precisely, and perhaps some people will follow your definition and will adopt it.
So you just need to be clear, publish your work, and perhaps people will understand and follow what you want to do… or not.
So you stay absolutely free to choose your money system, being precise with your own definitions.
Yes, of course you are free to choose your money system , but this money system is not free as long as there is someone who decides its inital values, regardless the will of the community that uses that money.
And yes, you may are precise with your own word definitions, but if your own word definitions dont match with the word definitions of the others, then in that case a communication (and as a consequence a community) is impossible to occur.
That’s exactly what you are doing, actually.
You insist to give us a different meaning for the word free that the one we’ve already chosen, so you are the one that just do not want to communicate with us.
So you can stay on your position of the word “free” (which is still a possible definition), but then do not complain about the fact it is not a “free” system to you: obviously it is not, because of the definitions you use.
But aren’t you able to switch of definitions? Again, when you look for a word in the dictionnary, you accept to switch of meaning because several meanings exist for a word. And you accept them because it is a dictionnary.
What if you accepted other meanings? Is it impossible for you?
Democracy does not exist an absolute entity either. There are only men who choose which reality to put under that word, but the new guys saying “this is not democracy” are no more legitimate than others to say what is democracy than what is not.
So everyone is always free, no matter which are the definitions you want to impose us.
1 Like
Correct. This is exactly what I am doing. But it is not my goal to confuse you,and stop the communication with you…
I am introducing to your community (which is a small community, you have to admit that) a new meaning of the word “free”. A new for you meaning that it is actually an old meaning, and a meaning that I believe most of the people think, when they refer to that word.
Even if you dont agree with my meaning, if you are an open community you have to agree that this is also a definition of freedom.
And if you are a free community (which is identical to a democratic community in my definition) you have to let members of your community to decide what “free” is. And if the majorithy of your communtiy change opinion and thinks that my new definition of “freedom” is better than yours, then you must also change the label “free” for your money, as long as you still insist of defining its initial parameters without asking your community about them.
Yes I agree this is also a possible defintion.
Pfff, and what is the community decide I have to die? Will I have to? Seriously. 
No. I don’t have to do anything.
When it comes to conceptual worlds, you have two choices:
- you accept to interprete the new definitions if some are given
- you do not accept them
If you choose 1), then maybe you have a chance to understand what is said. But that still require an effort to understand the imbrication of the new concepts. This might take hours, days or even years (think about Einstein relativity for example).
If you choose 2), then you won’t understand anything, for sure. Because there will exist inconsistencies, that is, definitions that are not compliant between them. Here, you will be lost in infinite loop of non-understanding and rejections of definitions and conclusions.
You are currently in choice 2. You reject the new definitions and so you don’t understand why we agree to say “this is free currency”.
Note how this do not imply to accept 1) forever. You can do it for the time you study a particular case. You can get back to another definition thereafter.
If you really don’t agree with the “free money” term, then just say “free acccording to the definitions given by the RMT”, which does not mean this is the free as in your own definition.
We don’t force anyone here.
Edit: I hope that, with this comment, you understood that “majority” does not legitimate anything. You might be right, alone in a room of wrong guys. Majority won’t change this.
« Au pays des fous, ce sont les sains d’esprit qui paraissent fous. »
Anyway, It is a matter of definition, and I think this conversation about the “free” word does not lead anywhere.
So I return to the original subject of the thread, the model of your WoT.
Can I put somewhere a poll about it?
I would like to ask the members of your community, what they believe the correct initial values of the ucoin software should be.
I would like to ask this question not only to the trusted members, but also to the untrusted ones.
The purpose of the ucoin project is to make a tool to allow communities to create “free money” as defined in the RTM.
It is a clear objective. And that is what I like about it. The objective is well defined.
By the RTM definition, it is said that you must respect symmetry over time.
But you will break it as long as you will change the rules for future users.
No matter who decided, rules are changed, old users are not equals to new ones.
So IMHO your proposition is not suitable to achieve the goal of the project.
But there is more…
In the blockchain, there is immutable properties in block 0.
This ones are totally secure.
It ensure symmetry in time for all users.
So if you authorize some properties to be changed, as mutable properties, you are weaker in term of security.
Any attackers, bad organized democratic crypto feasts, or clever individuals can try to change them in anyway they can. And they will…